定規－關懷雙元領導、部屬對主管認同與部屬行為關聯性之探討

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：12

、訪客IP：18.191.91.228

姓名

莊乃嬋(Nai-Chan Chuang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所在職專班

論文名稱

定規－關懷雙元領導、部屬對主管認同與部屬行為關聯性之探討
(Investigation of the Relationships among Both Consideration and Initiating Structure Leadership Styles, Leader Identification, and Subordinates′ Behaviors)

相關論文

★ 組織精簡與員工態度探討 - 以A公司人力重整計劃為例。	★ 訓練成效評估及影響訓練移轉之因素探討----一項時間管理訓練之研究
★ 主管領導風格、業務員工作習慣及專業證照對組織承諾與工作績效之相關研究	★ 研發專業人員職能需求之研究-以某研究機構為例
★ 人力資本、創新資本與組織財務績效關聯性之研究	★ 企業人力資源跨部門服務HR人員之角色、工作任務及所需職能之研究
★ 新進保全人員訓練成效之評估	★ 人力資源專業人員職能之研究－一項追蹤性的研究
★ 影響企業實施接班人計劃的成功因素	★ 主管管理能力、工作動機與工作績效之關聯性探討─以A公司為例
★ 影響安全氣候因子之探討-以汽車製造業為例	★ 台電公司不同世代員工工作價值觀差異及對激勵措施偏好之研究
★ 不同的激勵措施對員工工作滿足及工作投入之影響性分析	★ 工作價值觀、工作滿足對組織承諾之影響(以A通訊公司研發人員為例)
★ 薪資公平知覺與組織承諾關係之探討－以內外控人格特質為干擾變項	★ 改善活動訓練成效評量之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

過去研究大多專注於二者擇一(either/or)思維，提出關懷型與定規型領導風格分別對於部屬行為的影響，卻少有研究以雙元領導的矛盾思維，關注於關懷型與定規型領導風格兩者兼備的可能性。因此，本研究以雙元領導的矛盾思維出發，考量主管在兩種領導風格兼備的可能性，並使用非線性統計方法－多項式迴歸及反應曲面分析，探究關懷-定規雙元領導、關懷型領導、定規型領導及放任型領導等四種領導風格，對於部屬對主管認同之影響，同時也進一步探究部屬對主管認同在展現一致性雙元領導的主管與部屬工作行為之間是否具有中介效果。本研究在台灣企業蒐集360份有效主管部屬配對問卷後的結果發現，(1)展現定規-關懷雙元領導的主管，相較於展現放任領導的主管，有更高的部屬對主管認同。(2) 展現關懷領導的主管，相較於展現定規領導的主管，有更高的部屬對主管認同。(3) 部屬對主管認同在雙元領導一致性與部屬行為面-即任務主動性與任務適應性行為之間具有中介效果。

摘要(英)

Most of the previous researches focused on the study of “either/or” perspective leadership styles, but there were only few studies that focused on the coexistence of consideration and initiating structure leadership styles which known as “both/and” leadership style. The purpose of this research is to use ambidextrous leadership to explore the possibility of a leader with both coexistence of consideration and initiating structure leadership styles. We adopted polynomial regression and response surface analysis methods to investigate the impact of four different leadership styles (“both/and” leadership, consideration leadership, initiating structure leadership and laissez-faire leadership) on the relationship of leader identification, and whether will the leader identification cause intermediary effect between ambidextrous leadership consistency and subordinate’s behavior.
Drawing on an effective cross-organization survey with data of 360 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Taiwan, we found the following results: (1) Higher leader identification was achieved under “both/and” leadership while being compared with laissez-faire leadership. (2) Higher leader identification was achieved under consideration leadership while being compared with initiating structure leadership. (3) The leader identification quality has intermediary effect between ambidextrous leadership and subordinate’s behavior such as task proactivity and task adaptivity behavior.

關鍵字(中)

★ 雙元領導
★ 矛盾領導
★ 關懷型領導風格
★ 定規型領導風格
★ 對主管認同
★ 任務主動性

關鍵字(英)

★ Ambidextrous Leadership
★ Paradoxical Leadership
★ Consideration Leadership Style
★ Initiating Structure Leadership Style
★ Leader Identification
★ Task Proactivity

論文目次

中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
致謝 iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
一、緒論 1
1-1研究背景與動機 1
1-2研究目的 2
二、文獻探討與假設 3
2-1 雙元領導的起源 3
2-1-1 雙元領導(Ambidextrous Leadership)理論的意涵 3
2-1-2 雙元領導(Ambidextrous Leadership)與矛盾領導(Paradoxical Leadership) 4
2-2 雙元理論與俄亥俄州立大學雙構面領導風格之連結 5
2-3 部屬對主管認同之意涵 8
2-4 任務主動性與任務適應性之意涵 8
2-5 四種領導風格與部屬對主管認同之關係 9
2-6 部屬對主管認同在雙元領導與部屬行為之間的中介作用 11
三、研究方法 12
3-1 研究架構 12
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 12
3-3 研究工具 13
3-3-1關懷與定規型領導風格 14
3-3-2任務主動性與任務適應性 15
3-3-3對主管認同 15
3-3-4控制變項 16
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 17
四、研究結果 18
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 18
4-2 信度與效度分析 21
4-2-1 信度分析 21
4-2-2 效度分析 21
4-2-2-1收斂效度 21
4-2-2-2區辨效度 23
4-3 驗證性因素分析 23
4-4 相關分析 24
4-5 顯著差異樣本比例 25
4-6 假設檢定 26
4-6-1關懷型領導與定規型領導對於部屬對主管認同的影響 26
4-6-2部屬對主管認同在雙元領導與部屬行為之間的中介效果 28
五、結論與建議 31
5-1 研究結論與討論 31
5-2 學術貢獻 33
5-3 管理意涵 34
5-4 研究限制與對未來研究建議 35
六、參考文獻 36

參考文獻

一、中文部分
張偉豪、鄭時宜，與結構方程式模型共舞－曙光初現，新北市，前程文化，民國 101 年。
曾玉琦、張瑞當，會計師事務所領導行為對審計小組成員溝通行為之影響－以審計結構化為調節變數，會計學報，第二卷第二期，61-83頁，民國 99 年。
黃芳銘，結構方程模式－理論與應用，五版，五南圖書，臺北市，民國104年。
鍾怡安，「兩全其美領導？關懷與定規領導風格兼具對部屬行為之影響」，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所，碩士論文，民國108 年。
羅瑾璉、趙莉、韓楊、鐘競與管建世（2016），雙元領導研究進展述評，管理學報， 13（12）， 1882頁。
二、英文部分
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: sage.
Badin, I. J. (1974). Some moderator influences on relationships between consideration, initiating structure and organizational criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 380.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Library of Congress Catalog. In: New York: General Learning Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual (Vol. 6): Multivariate software Encino, CA.
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: Fontana London.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. In: New York: J Wiley & Sons.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology, 389-444.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods Research, 21(2), 230-258.
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796-819.
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Sage Publications.
Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of management review, 35(4), 516-538.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cummins, R. C. (1971). Relationship of initiating structure and job performance as moderated by consideration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(5), 489.
Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior human performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524-540.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 453-461.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577-1613.
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. The organizational Frontiers Series, 209-258.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 43-56.
Fleishman, E. A., & Salter, J. A. (1963). Relation between the leaders behavior and his empathy toward subordinates. Journal of Industrial Psychology.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143, 165.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational behavior human performance, 30(1), 109-131.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational behavior human decision processes, 66(2), 203-214.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of management journal, 50(2), 327-347.
Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., & Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Work Outcomes: A Paradox Theory Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, vol. 5 Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey/Prentice Hall.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 255-269.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Effects of leadership consideration and structure on employee perceptions of justice and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 492-519.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
House, R. J., Filley, A. C., & Kerr, S. (1971). Relation of leader consideration and initiating structure to R and D subordinates′ satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(1), 19-30.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Hu, W., Luo, J., Chen, Z., & Zhong, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leaders helping newcomers get on board: Achieving adjustment and proaction through distinct pathways. Journal of Business Research, 118, 406-414. doi:10.1016
Johnson, R. W. (2001). An introduction to the bootstrap. Teaching Statistics, 23(2), 49-54.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of conflict resolution, 2(1), 51-60.
Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1), 62-82.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of social psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of management review, 25(4), 760-776.
Li, S., Jia, R., Seufert, J. H., Wang, X., & Luo, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and radical innovative capability: The moderating role of leader support. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(4), 621-633.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of management journal, 23(3), 451-465.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers′ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom‐up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of management studies, 44(6), 910-931.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers′ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
Nowack, K. M. (1993). 360-degree feedback: The whole story. Training and Development, 47(1), 69-73.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric testing. In: New York: McGraw-Hill.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The leadership quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior Human Performance, 15(2), 297-321.
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 439-446.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business Psychology, 25(4), 543-554.
She, Z., Li, Q., Yang, B., & Yang, B. (2020). Paradoxical leadership and hospitality employees’ service performance: The role of leader identification and need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102524.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of management review, 32(1), 9-32.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salvemini, N. (1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Personnel psychology, 48(1), 1-34.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form XII: An experimental revision: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio ….
Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self‐efficacy. Journal of occupational organizational psychology, 84(1), 153-172.
Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113.
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel review.
Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1972). The independence of initiating structure and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology, 25(1), 119-130.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods Research, 16(1), 118-154.

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2021-7-5

推文